Islamic Law Adopted By Legal Chiefs

First topic message reminder :

23rd March 2014

After all those years fighting for equality, we now give it all away due to... well, either political correctness, or a crippling fear of islam.

Please discuss.



Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.


Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.


The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.


Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Some lawyers described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.

“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”

The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.

It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.

It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.

The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

BigAndy9 wrote:The Lawyers' Secular Society had this to say:


Practice notes are guidance issued by the Law Society for specific areas of law. This practice note contains the following wording:


“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.”

“…illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.”

Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:

“This is a very worrying move by the Law Society, and the LSS strongly condemns them for issuing this practice note.

“By issuing this practice note the Law Society is legitimising and normalising – or at the very least being seen to legitimise and normalise – the distribution of assets in accordance with the discriminatory provisions of Sharia law. The Law Society is therefore being seen to legitimise and normalise Sharia law more generally. This is a matter of grave concern for the LSS given that Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women and non-Muslims.

“As a matter of law, testators (the person making the will) can generally dispose of their assets as they wish, but there are restrictions to this principle, for example to ensure dependants are provided for.

“Although the Law Society’s practice note does not change the law, it does undermine, for example, the way adopted children, children born out of wedlock, and children who are deemed to be of another faith are viewed. This is a worrying precedent to set. At the very least this practice note undermines the dignity of these children; at the worst it starts to slowly undermine the legal protections rightly afforded to them.

“The practice note is dangerous to the priceless notion of equality before the law for people of all faiths and none. It potentially paves the way, ultimately, for a change in the law so that different laws of intestacy (the situation where someone dies without making a will) are applied to Muslims, or those who are deemed to be Muslims.

“The practice note states that ‘there are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note’. In time will the Law Society publish different guidance notes for different branches of Islam?

“The LSS calls on the Law Society to withdraw its shocking practice note without delay.”


http://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/lss-condemns-law-societys-practice-note-on-sharia-compliant-wills/

Did they say anything about leaving their wealth to the cat?

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:The Lawyers' Secular Society had this to say:


Practice notes are guidance issued by the Law Society for specific areas of law. This practice note contains the following wording:


“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.”

“…illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.”

Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:

“This is a very worrying move by the Law Society, and the LSS strongly condemns them for issuing this practice note.

“By issuing this practice note the Law Society is legitimising and normalising – or at the very least being seen to legitimise and normalise – the distribution of assets in accordance with the discriminatory provisions of Sharia law. The Law Society is therefore being seen to legitimise and normalise Sharia law more generally. This is a matter of grave concern for the LSS given that Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women and non-Muslims.

“As a matter of law, testators (the person making the will) can generally dispose of their assets as they wish, but there are restrictions to this principle, for example to ensure dependants are provided for.

“Although the Law Society’s practice note does not change the law, it does undermine, for example, the way adopted children, children born out of wedlock, and children who are deemed to be of another faith are viewed. This is a worrying precedent to set. At the very least this practice note undermines the dignity of these children; at the worst it starts to slowly undermine the legal protections rightly afforded to them.

“The practice note is dangerous to the priceless notion of equality before the law for people of all faiths and none. It potentially paves the way, ultimately, for a change in the law so that different laws of intestacy (the situation where someone dies without making a will) are applied to Muslims, or those who are deemed to be Muslims.

“The practice note states that ‘there are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note’. In time will the Law Society publish different guidance notes for different branches of Islam?

“The LSS calls on the Law Society to withdraw its shocking practice note without delay.”


http://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/lss-condemns-law-societys-practice-note-on-sharia-compliant-wills/

Did they say anything about leaving their wealth to the cat?

Yeah - they said the cat must have "one of dem foreign sounding names"!

The Lawyers' Secular Society had this to say:


Practice notes are guidance issued by the Law Society for specific areas of law. This practice note contains the following wording:


“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.”

“…illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.”

Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:

“This is a very worrying move by the Law Society, and the LSS strongly condemns them for issuing this practice note.

“By issuing this practice note the Law Society is legitimising and normalising – or at the very least being seen to legitimise and normalise – the distribution of assets in accordance with the discriminatory provisions of Sharia law. The Law Society is therefore being seen to legitimise and normalise Sharia law more generally. This is a matter of grave concern for the LSS given that Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women and non-Muslims.

“As a matter of law, testators (the person making the will) can generally dispose of their assets as they wish, but there are restrictions to this principle, for example to ensure dependants are provided for.

“Although the Law Society’s practice note does not change the law, it does undermine, for example, the way adopted children, children born out of wedlock, and children who are deemed to be of another faith are viewed. This is a worrying precedent to set. At the very least this practice note undermines the dignity of these children; at the worst it starts to slowly undermine the legal protections rightly afforded to them.

“The practice note is dangerous to the priceless notion of equality before the law for people of all faiths and none. It potentially paves the way, ultimately, for a change in the law so that different laws of intestacy (the situation where someone dies without making a will) are applied to Muslims, or those who are deemed to be Muslims.

“The practice note states that ‘there are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note’. In time will the Law Society publish different guidance notes for different branches of Islam?

“The LSS calls on the Law Society to withdraw its shocking practice note without delay.”


http://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/lss-condemns-law-societys-practice-note-on-sharia-compliant-wills/

BigAndy9 wrote:The Lawyers' Secular Society had this to say:


Practice notes are guidance issued by the Law Society for specific areas of law. This practice note contains the following wording:


“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.”

“…illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.”

Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:

“This is a very worrying move by the Law Society, and the LSS strongly condemns them for issuing this practice note.

“By issuing this practice note the Law Society is legitimising and normalising – or at the very least being seen to legitimise and normalise – the distribution of assets in accordance with the discriminatory provisions of Sharia law. The Law Society is therefore being seen to legitimise and normalise Sharia law more generally. This is a matter of grave concern for the LSS given that Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women and non-Muslims.

“As a matter of law, testators (the person making the will) can generally dispose of their assets as they wish, but there are restrictions to this principle, for example to ensure dependants are provided for.

“Although the Law Society’s practice note does not change the law, it does undermine, for example, the way adopted children, children born out of wedlock, and children who are deemed to be of another faith are viewed. This is a worrying precedent to set. At the very least this practice note undermines the dignity of these children; at the worst it starts to slowly undermine the legal protections rightly afforded to them.

“The practice note is dangerous to the priceless notion of equality before the law for people of all faiths and none. It potentially paves the way, ultimately, for a change in the law so that different laws of intestacy (the situation where someone dies without making a will) are applied to Muslims, or those who are deemed to be Muslims.

“The practice note states that ‘there are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note’. In time will the Law Society publish different guidance notes for different branches of Islam?

“The LSS calls on the Law Society to withdraw its shocking practice note without delay.”


http://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/lss-condemns-law-societys-practice-note-on-sharia-compliant-wills/

Is this a duplicate?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:The Lawyers' Secular Society had this to say:


Practice notes are guidance issued by the Law Society for specific areas of law. This practice note contains the following wording:


“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.”

“…illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.”

Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:

“This is a very worrying move by the Law Society, and the LSS strongly condemns them for issuing this practice note.

“By issuing this practice note the Law Society is legitimising and normalising – or at the very least being seen to legitimise and normalise – the distribution of assets in accordance with the discriminatory provisions of Sharia law. The Law Society is therefore being seen to legitimise and normalise Sharia law more generally. This is a matter of grave concern for the LSS given that Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women and non-Muslims.

“As a matter of law, testators (the person making the will) can generally dispose of their assets as they wish, but there are restrictions to this principle, for example to ensure dependants are provided for.

“Although the Law Society’s practice note does not change the law, it does undermine, for example, the way adopted children, children born out of wedlock, and children who are deemed to be of another faith are viewed. This is a worrying precedent to set. At the very least this practice note undermines the dignity of these children; at the worst it starts to slowly undermine the legal protections rightly afforded to them.

“The practice note is dangerous to the priceless notion of equality before the law for people of all faiths and none. It potentially paves the way, ultimately, for a change in the law so that different laws of intestacy (the situation where someone dies without making a will) are applied to Muslims, or those who are deemed to be Muslims.

“The practice note states that ‘there are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note’. In time will the Law Society publish different guidance notes for different branches of Islam?

“The LSS calls on the Law Society to withdraw its shocking practice note without delay.”


http://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/lss-condemns-law-societys-practice-note-on-sharia-compliant-wills/

Did they say anything about leaving their wealth to the cat?

Yeah - they said the cat must have "one of dem foreign sounding names"!

One like this...

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Yeah - they said the cat must have "one of dem foreign sounding names"!

One like this...

pmsl

Depends on it's name of course - if it is John or Emily it's ok.   

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's about time that all of Britain converted to Islam and submitted to Shariah.

Ben, when that happens can I have a 12 year old wife? Cor!!! I hope she can cook.

stardesk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's about time that all of Britain converted to Islam and submitted to Shariah.

Ben, when that happens can I have a 12 year old wife? Cor!!! I hope she can cook.

12 year old, you going for the older women of islam star....

stardesk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's about time that all of Britain converted to Islam and submitted to Shariah.

Ben, when that happens can I have a 12 year old wife? Cor!!! I hope she can cook.

When I buy my wife, at the start, she was cook good, her vagine work well, and she strong on plow, but after three years, when she was fifteen, then she become weak, her voice become deep -- 'Borat, Borat,' she receive hair on chest, and vagine hang like sleeve of wizard.

 

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

stardesk wrote:

Ben, when that happens can I have a 12 year old wife? Cor!!! I hope she can cook.

12 year old, you going for the older women of islam star....

Indeed Gigatt, something that wont want a dummy or bottle...  

Ben, you'll have to put her up for auction in your local market place, trade her in for a new model. A sporty type that's quick and lively, and goes at 60mph in 3 seconds. Phew, you'll have a job keeping up with her but oh boy, what fun.

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

if it agrees extra because of compliance with sharia law then it is wrong.

What is extra?

It will only be drawn up if it complies with British law and as seen British law allows discrimination within wills

The point being...if it complies with british law then the "sharia aspect" of it is superfluous and thus unnecessary.
what happens when, as will happen there start to be "conflicts" of law ?

I'll tell you what happens...THEIR law will be made "our" law, by exception...in exactly the same way as sikhs and crash helmets....

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:

What is extra?

It will only be drawn up if it complies with British law and as seen British law allows discrimination within wills

The point being...if it complies with british law then the "sharia aspect" of it is superfluous and thus unnecessary.
what happens when, as will happen there start to be "conflicts" of law ?

I'll tell you what happens...THEIR  law will be made "our" law, by exception...in exactly the same way as sikhs and crash helmets....

That is the whole point it is superfluous, because it is meant to make Muslims believe they can make sharia wills, so Lawyers can make money out of them, the point you missed.
You always miss the bigger picture do you not Victor?

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

The point being...if it complies with british law then the "sharia aspect" of it is superfluous and thus unnecessary.
what happens when, as will happen there start to be "conflicts" of law ?

I'll tell you what happens...THEIR  law will be made "our" law, by exception...in exactly the same way as sikhs and crash helmets....

That is the whole point it is superfluous, because it is meant to make Muslims believe they can make sharia wills, so Lawyers can make money out of them, the point you missed.
You always miss the bigger picture do you not Victor?

You may appease THEM.....it doesnt work on me.....remember the sikhs and crash helmets????

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



That is the whole point it is superfluous, because it is meant to make Muslims believe they can make sharia wills, so Lawyers can make money out of them, the point you missed.
You always miss the bigger picture do you not Victor?

You may appease THEM.....it doesnt work on me.....remember the sikhs and crash helmets????

That is an idiotic reply, nobody is being appeased, because no law is being superseded, what is happening is lawyers have found a way to make many Muslims think their law is within sharia law and thus can make a mint out of them. The sad fact is you know this to be true


Night

sikhs and helmets.......

victorisnotamused wrote:sikhs and helmets.......

Does that affect you or sikhs ?

If your argument is not to wear safety for your head, then it is doomed to fail, as I do not agree with a law that allows religious views over safety, but again a different argument, which you are now deflecting to from the point where we all know this guidance was enacted to exploit the will law for Muslims, so people could gain from it, the lawyer


Really have to go, bye

the point I am making is that when, inevitably there comes a clash of sharia and english law some moron of a judge will buckle and allow it....just as with the sikhs and helmets...
my argument there is that british law was NOT held to be superior to a groups religious beliefs, thus setting a dangerous precedent.....I an not arguing for the law to be removed and ALL not to wear helmets...I am arguing that ALL SHOULD wesr helmets...regardless...

victorisnotamused wrote:the point I am making is that when, inevitably there comes a clash of sharia and english law some moron of a judge will buckle and allow it....just as with the sikhs and helmets...
my argument there is that british law was NOT held to be superior to a groups religious beliefs, thus setting a dangerous precedent.....I an not arguing for the law to be removed and ALL not to wear helmets...I am arguing that ALL SHOULD wesr helmets...regardless...

Allow what?
No will can be made legally binding without it being within British law.
How can a judge change that, if it complies within British law, when as stated British law allows for people o discriminate in wills, the point again you miss. Thus this whole debate is a farce, because British law allows discrimination in wills, so how is any Islamic one going to differ Victor to what already can be done, Their wills ensure women get a slice of the cake, a sexist lacking amount but an amount all the same. the fact is again, what is going to be bad when we allow wills to be bad on this front?
I think all should wear helmets, that has no point to the debate and you know it, as it is a poor deflection

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:the point I am making is that when, inevitably there comes a clash of sharia and english law some moron of a judge will buckle and allow it....just as with the sikhs and helmets...
my argument there is that british law was NOT held to be superior to a groups religious beliefs, thus setting a dangerous precedent.....I an not arguing for the law to be removed and ALL not to wear helmets...I am arguing that ALL SHOULD wesr helmets...regardless...

Allow what?
No will can be made legally binding without it being within British law.
How can a judge change that, if it complies within British law, when as stated British law allows for people o discriminate in wills, the point again you miss. Thus this whole debate is a farce, because British law allows discrimination in wills, so how is any Islamic one going to differ Victor to what already can be done, Their wills ensure women get a slice of the cake, a sexist lacking amount but an amount all the same. the  fact is again, what is going to be bad when we allow wills to be bad on this front?
I think all should wear helmets, that has no point to the debate and you know it, as it is a poor deflection

firstly the sikhs and helmets is NOT a deflection...it is a valid comparison

YOU ask "how can a judge change that"...shows how little you know about law...

a high court judge can effectively change the law by setting precedence..go look it up...
a supreme court judge can change a law by decree, requiring parliament to change primary legislation, on a number of grounds especially so called "human rights".....again...go look it up.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Allow what?
No will can be made legally binding without it being within British law.
How can a judge change that, if it complies within British law, when as stated British law allows for people o discriminate in wills, the point again you miss. Thus this whole debate is a farce, because British law allows discrimination in wills, so how is any Islamic one going to differ Victor to what already can be done, Their wills ensure women get a slice of the cake, a sexist lacking amount but an amount all the same. the  fact is again, what is going to be bad when we allow wills to be bad on this front?
I think all should wear helmets, that has no point to the debate and you know it, as it is a poor deflection

firstly the sikhs and helmets is NOT a deflection...it is a valid comparison

YOU ask "how can a judge change that"...shows how little you know about law...

a high court judge can effectively change the law by setting precedence..go look it up...
a supreme court judge can change a law by decree, requiring parliament to change primary legislation, on a number of grounds especially so called "human rights".....again...go look it up.

It is a deflection, because as seen sharia inheritance laws have no affect on our own laws, when they already can discriminate, where a sikh is unique to being able to ignore safety.
Thus very different and again it matter slittle what a judge can do here when already the point you utterly miss, people can already discriminate who gets an inheritance or do you deny this?
This incorporating a religious view into inheritance law where it is the same already is not changing that law at all is it silly?

it matters not...

the point is WHY, since as you say british law (for the moment) supercedes, do we need to consider any other....

The same as Laws of Inheritence had to be taken into account for the Royal Family Wills etc.

Honestly, I've never seen a hornets nest stirred up about something as petty. Every single person has different things they put in their wills, that solicitors have to check to make sure they follow British law. This is absolutely no different. Fuss about bloody nothing.

drip.....drip....drip....

slowly,

one little thing at a time

drip..... drip..... drip......

time is on our side

like drops of water

we creep

slowly

drip....drip....drip


in time the flood will build


in time the dam will burst


slowly little ones


drip.....drip.....drip


one drop at a time.........

Sorry Victor, that's just paranoia.

just because you have been diagnosed as paranoid does NOT preclude the possibility they are out to get you  

victorisnotamused wrote:it matters not...

the point is WHY, since as you say british law (for the moment) supercedes, do we need to consider any other....

I already told you, so that lawyers can exploit it to make money

victorisnotamused wrote:drip.....drip....drip....

slowly,

one little thing at a time

drip..... drip..... drip......

time is on our side

like drops of water

we creep

slowly

drip....drip....drip


in time the flood will build


in time the dam will burst


slowly little ones


drip.....drip.....drip


one drop at a time.........

thats exactly how it works, Britain has undergone an invasion and it has been missed by many...

The Norman Invasion?

you leave Norman out of this...he aint done anything wrong